Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
Patterico is an assistant district attorney in Los Angeles and a conservative. He and I have debated legal issues in the past, always respectfully even when we disagree. Today I want to applaud him for voting no on Prop 8 in California. He writes:
I am angry about the California Supreme Court's attempt to take this matter out of voters' hands, and part of me wants to support the measure just to flip the bird to the justices. Ultimately, however, I support the right of homosexuals to marry one another, and so I will be voting no.
Here is what he wrote in an earlier post:
The downside of banning gay marriage is that homosexuals are made to feel that they are second-class citizens. I don't know whether being gay is genetic, a learned behavior, or some combination of the two -- but I am confident that it is something that people do not consciously choose. I certainly did not consciously choose to be sexually attracted to women; that is hard-wired into me somehow. I can't imagine it's different for gay men.Since gays do not consciously choose their sexual orientation, refusing to give them access to an institution available to heterosexuals is discrimination. The policy question is whether this discrimination is justified on a societal level.
And he concludes that it is not justified. Some of the comments are astonishing, especially one by a MikeK who writes:
My concern is with activists like Andrew Sullivan who, I believe, will use legalized gay marriage to force churches to perform these ceremonies at the pain of losing tax exempt status.
That's just bizarre. Andrew Sullivan would be the last person to be behind such a policy. Indeed, it is extremely rare that anyone who is in favor of gay marriage is also in favor of forcing churches to perform such ceremonies. Most of us would fight just as strongly against such coercion as we do in favor of gay marriage and Sullivan is absolutely in that group. I have absolutely no idea what orifice this person pulled this accusation out of.
Anyway, three cheers to Patterico on this one. Well done.
Politics
Comments
Yes, that should not be the reason they should lose their tax status. They should lose it for quite different reasons.
Posted by: Richard Eis | November 4, 2008 10:25 AM
"Since gays do not consciously choose their sexual orientation, refusing to give them access to an institution available to heterosexuals is discrimination. The policy question is whether this discrimination is justified on a societal level."
Actually, it's discrimination even if gays DO choose their sexual orientation. Otherwise, why is religion a protected class?
Posted by: Rick R | November 4, 2008 10:41 AM
What he is saying is that people's rights should be decided by a majority decision.
Posted by: wheyghey | November 4, 2008 10:42 AM
wheygey:
That's exactly how I read that too. He's right on this issue, but apparently, he thinks it's OK for civil rights to be arbitrated by majorities.
Right for the wrong reasons is just unsettling. Still, I am grateful he voted 'No.'
Posted by: TikiHead | November 4, 2008 10:52 AM
Speaking on behalf of quite a few MikeK s, I believe the MikeK that Ed quoted is ignorant of the law and interaction of Church and State.
In my mind, the government should not be in the business of marriage. Let churchs and couples determine what they consider sacred and let the govenrment just issue civil unions.
Posted by: A Different MikeK | November 4, 2008 11:18 AM
The ignorance about what the courts are for over at Patterico's commentosphere is shocking.
Posted by: TikiHead | November 4, 2008 11:18 AM
I am angry about the California Supreme Court's attempt to take this matter out of voters' hands
I'm confused as well by this. It seems like he's saying the court ruled wrong, that gay marriage was already not allowed in the state constitution. But he states that gay marriage should be allowed (hence his vote).
Would he be happier if no one brought it up and he wouldn't have to support equal rights? It sounds like he is supporting a don't ask, don't marry policy.
Posted by: Odie | November 4, 2008 11:19 AM
(I'm also of the opinion that courts are rarely, if ever, all that countermajoritarian anyway. Michael Klarman's excellent book on the history of the civil rights movement, From Jim Crow to Civil Rights, makes this argument far more eloquently than I ever could.)
Posted by: Chuck | November 4, 2008 11:37 AM
MikeK is repeating what many church's argue about gay marriage. I have heard many people around here (TX) say the same thing; suffice it to say, they are getting the idea somewhere. I have one colleague who said she was told that at church and would simply not believe me when I told her that no church would ever be forced to marry someone it didn't want to (I gave her numerous examples of church's that already have limitations on whom they will marry to no avail).
Posted by: Eric | November 4, 2008 11:39 AM
Different MikeK,
This comes up in every discussion like this. I would point out that it's A) irrelevant, since we're discussing an existing institution (civil marriage licenses), and whether equal access ought to be afforded same sex couples, and B) it does smack of the school principal who banned all school clubs when gay students tried to start one. Sorry, to my gay ears it does seem like a similar argument.
Posted by: TikiHead | November 4, 2008 11:53 AM
I think that this is the important point that is often lost in the debate. It doesn't matter whether or not gays "choose" to be gay.
It is not society's business to weigh in on it. The State's only business is to protect victims of sexual assault in whatever forms it takes; rape, sexual harassment, incest, statutory rape, etc.
Choice is a goal of liberty, and sexual orientation should be a protected choice. Studies have shown a continuum of sexual preference, so it is not like there is an arbitrary line drawn between who is straight and who is gay. Even I have had gay sexual fantasies, though I am straight. I have just never wanted to act on them. It would be my decision to do so, or not to do so.
Posted by: Mike Haubrich, FCD | November 4, 2008 11:58 AM
Posted by: c-serpent | November 4, 2008 12:22 PM
It's nice to know that about half the commenters who support 8 aren't (or at least won't admit to being) motivated by bigotry. I do wish people would think their arguments through, though.
Posted by: Brandon | November 4, 2008 12:23 PM
I don't know what you mean by "protected class," and I also don't see how it has anything to do with same sex marriages.
Posted by: rob | November 4, 2008 12:39 PM
rob, the argument is sometimes made that if gays CHOOSE to be gays, then that makes it acceptable to deny them certain rights that other people take for granted.
The point is that religion is most assuredly a choice, and yet nobody (well, nobody worth listening to) would say it was acceptable to deny Hindus or Catholics the right to marry the person of their choice.
Posted by: Donalbain | November 4, 2008 12:51 PM
I think it is odd that an assistant DA would be angry that the CA Supreme Court applied its authority to uphold the state Constitution. I was under the impression that attorney's were educated about judicial review in law school.
Is Patterico angry that the Court exercised its authority, or, is he actually angry that the state Constitution protects GLBTQ people as well as hets?
Posted by: D Sandberg | November 4, 2008 12:53 PM
It is illegal to discriminate against someone's religion when it comes to jobs, housing etc.
In a list of protections, religion sticks out because it is not an "immutable trait", it is a choice. So the question of whether or not sexual orientation is "immutable" (those poor gays can't help it) is (and should be) legally irrelevant to the question of marriage equality.
Posted by: Rick R | November 4, 2008 12:53 PM
Rob, certain characteristics are "protected classes", which means businesses and the government cannot discriminate against them. Protected classes include race, ethnicity, religion, nationality, sex, familial status, disabilities, veteran status, and genetics. Sexual orientation is a protected class in some states. President Bush recently vetoed a bill that would have made it a protected class in all states.
Religion is something you choose, not born with. So, you can say, "Sexual orientation is a choice, so they can't be a protected class." But then you can say, "Religion is a choice, so they can't be a protected class." And then the government can ban Jews from getting married, something that would never happen. It's a reductio ad absurdum. So Rick R is saying that as long as lifestyle choices like religion are protected, you cannot refuse to protect sexual orientation just because it's a choice.
Posted by: Brandon | November 4, 2008 12:56 PM
I see. I thought you might be referring to the oft-repeated claim that hate crime legislation creates "special rights."
However I still don't see what this has to do with same sex marriage. Opponents to gay marriage are correct that this will mean a change in the definition of marriage, which used to be between a man and woman. There has never been any law that prevented homosexuals from marrying people of the opposite sex, just as, under the new law, you will not have to swear an oath that you are sexually attracted to your partner or other members of you partner's sex before you are married.
The law grants the right to marry someone of the same sex to everybody. The only thing special about this right to gay people is that now they will be able to marry the person they love. (Well, rather a person of the sex that they are sexually attracted to. Whether or not they love their partner would still be up to them.)
You are not guaranteed the right to a particular job just because you want it. Although, of course, you are not barred from taking a job just because you like it.
This is a change in the definition of legal definition of marriage. Well, it will be in some states when same sex marriage is legalized there. As I understand it, in California this was not the case - the legal definition of marriage there did not preclude same sex couples - which was why the supreme court ruled the way they did.
Where opponents are wrong is that it is a good and just change, that also happens to reflect the values of marriage (e.g. love and companionship) in the popular culture.
Posted by: rob | November 4, 2008 1:12 PM
>My concern is with activists like Andrew Sullivan who, I believe, will use legalized gay marriage to force churches to perform these ceremonies at the pain of losing tax exempt status.
This argument is ridiculous for another reason: Why in the world would a same-sex couple want to get married in a church that rejected them? That's a bit like going to a Klan meeting for a Juneteenth celebration.
There are plenty of churches/temples/fellowships that will happily marry same-sex couples, and have so (at least in spirit) for years. The (straight FTR) reverend at my Unitarian-Universalist fellowship here is a huge No on 8 activist and I couldn't be prouder of her.
Posted by: Mojave66 | November 4, 2008 1:14 PM
Glad to hear he'll join me in voting No on 8 (and hopefully on 4 too). I really want to see this get shot down.
Posted by: JStein | November 4, 2008 1:20 PM
rob:
The law allows ANYONE to marry someone of the same race as themselves. There is no good reason to change it to allow mixed marriages.
Posted by: Donalbain | November 4, 2008 1:25 PM
Glad to hear he'll join me in voting No on 8 (and hopefully on 4 too). I really want to see this get shot down.
Why would it be a good thing for Prop. 4 to get shot down?
Posted by: mroberts | November 4, 2008 1:34 PM
What Donalbain said. I'll spare you a long discussion, Rob. There is one sound argument against gay marriage that wasn't also used against interracial marriage.
The purpose of marriage is to have children.
and/or
Children thrive best with a mother and a father.
But if you make this argument, you need to address why you have no issues with single parents and crappy parents. You also need to explain why babies are better off in an orphanage or with an unwed teenager than with two same-sex parents.
Posted by: Brandon | November 4, 2008 1:53 PM
You would then have to explain why we recognize marriages between the elderly or those known to be infertile.
It isn't a sound argument; it's yet another special plead.
Posted by: DaveL | November 4, 2008 1:59 PM
For completeness sake I should also point out that the second argument "Children thrive best with a mother and a father." is dependent on the first. If children are not required to legitimize a marriage (which we have already shown), then the environment best suited to raising them is irrelevant.
Posted by: DaveL | November 4, 2008 2:02 PM
You guys are either idiots or illiterate.
Of course the laws allow anybody of the same race to get married. This a fantastic reason to CHANGE THE LAWS.
WHICH IS WHAT I SAID.
BECAUSE GAY MARRIAGE IS A GOOD THING.
It is, however, a change.
CHANGE IS GOOD. When that change increases the level of justice and equality in the world. LIKE ALLOWING SAME SEX MARRIAGES DOES.
Posted by: rob | November 4, 2008 2:03 PM
My bad. I was busy and just skimmed the post. Sorry.
Posted by: Brandon | November 4, 2008 2:32 PM
True. It's also not a sound argument because they're both statements of opinion. "Sound" isn't the best word, but it was the only one I could think of. I guess its soundness is determined by who's stating it.
Posted by: Brandon | November 4, 2008 2:35 PM
So you're saying you support a ban on interracial marriage? I tease. I was just feeling left out of the misinterpretation and conclusion jumping.
Posted by: Abby Normal | November 4, 2008 2:44 PM
The point is that religion is most assuredly a choice
I don't think it is for everybody.
At least it takes a certain level of self-awareness and an ability to think critically about ones own thoughts and beliefs that not everybody has.
A Psychiatrist friend tells me that repeated experiments have shown that 30%-40% appear essentially unable to think critically about their own thought processes. I cant testify to the figure or anything, but it seems that there may be limits to some people's ability to change their religion or even political opinions.
Posted by: libarbarian | November 4, 2008 2:55 PM
To the extent that such things are provable, and from everything I have read, I believe studies have shown that:
1. Children a more well adjusted with two parents in their lives
2. Children (of any gender) are more well adjusted if they have a strong role model of both sexes.
But...
3. There is no reason that all four of these people (the two parents and the two strong role models) need to be the same two people. So a child growing up in a home where the mother is a strong role model, the father is a poor role model, and there is an uncle who provides a good role model will be (hypothetically) equally well adjusted as a child who grows up in a household where one of his fathers is a good role model, one of his fathers is a poor role model, and there is an aunt who is good role model.
In other words, if you're trying to "think of the children," then you should vote to allow gay marriage, and then vote to give schools, daycare facilities, and parents all of the support they could ever need.
I wish I could cite something, but you'll have to take my word for it...
Anyway, the blog post I read about this study in was the blog of a gay man and father who was explaining why he thought it was important that he and a lesbian couple got their families together regularly, because it provided both couples' children with healthy role models of both sexes.
In other words, all families are workable, even those where nobody is married.
I think it was Jon Stewart who once said (paraphrased) that saying only a man and a woman could properly raise a child was a personal insult to him, because he was raised by a single mother. Then he said something like, "You raise your kids with the family you have, not the family you wish you had."
The whole argument is full of holes.
Posted by: rob | November 4, 2008 3:09 PM
But if you make this argument, you need to address why you have no issues with single parents and crappy parents. You also need to explain why babies are better off in an orphanage or with an unwed teenager than with two same-sex parents.
If teenage parents and orphans are a big problem, then we should be taking steps to encourage mother and father families to take the babies in. That is the best solution.
I'm curious, would all of you who support gay marriage say that mothers are unimportant in raising children?
Posted by: mroberts | November 4, 2008 3:25 PM
They're so important, everybody should have two. Only women should be allowed to get married. To each other.
Posted by: rob | November 4, 2008 3:28 PM
Would you please explain what raising children has to do with gay marriage?
Bear in mind "The purpose of marriage is raising kids" was shot down just a short jog up the page.
Posted by: DaveL | November 4, 2008 3:30 PM
mrroberts:
They are not unimportant. But they are not essential.
There are good parents married to people of the other gender.
There are good parents married to people of the same gender.
There are bad parents married to people of the other gender.
There are bad parents married to people of the same gender.
Of course, that is not at all relevant to the idea of who can get married, since most people would agree that people on death row would be bad parents, but they can get married.
Posted by: Donalbain | November 4, 2008 3:38 PM
rob, Donalbain, DaveL, none of you answered the question. I will ask it again: are mothers important for the raising of children?
Posted by: mroberts | November 4, 2008 3:44 PM
mrroberts wrote:
All parents are important, regardless of gender.
And good parents of the same gender are better than bad parents of different genders.
Posted by: Leni | November 4, 2008 3:45 PM
Why, no one has ever thought to ask hetero parents to adopt kids before! What a great idea! (/sarcasm)
Coming back from Planet Mroberts, there are more children to be adopted than there are couples who want to adopt them. Add into that the fact that there have been no studies that indicate that two-parent homosexual couples are worse than two-parent hetero couples at child-rearing. Add into that the fact that marriage is not solely about child rearing. Add into that the fact that parents are given tremendous leeway in child rearing, including the right to do things that have been shown by research to not be best practice.
Add all that together, and the "children need a mother and father" argument against gay marriage comes off as the smokescreen it is.
Posted by: Shygetz | November 4, 2008 3:46 PM
All parents are important, regardless of gender.And good parents of the same gender are better than bad parents of different genders.
Leni, you didn't bother to answer the question either. Are mothers important for raising children? Are you prepared to say that they are not?
Posted by: mroberts | November 4, 2008 3:50 PM
mrroberts? Can you read?
mrroberts:
They are not unimportant. But they are not essential.
Posted by: Donalbain | November 4, 2008 3:51 PM
mrroberts:
They are not unimportant. But they are not essential.
OK donalbain, so you are OK with advocating policies that would intentionally leave a mother out of the picture by design? A simple yes or no would suffice.
Posted by: mroberts | November 4, 2008 3:56 PM
A mother?
Sorry. I thought this was a discussion about marriage.
Posted by: Donalbain | November 4, 2008 4:02 PM
A mother? Sorry. I thought this was a discussion about marriage.
Donalbain, how many more times are we going to go through this before you stop dodging the question? I will ask it again:
Are you or are you not OK with advocating policies that would intentionally leave a mother out of the picture by design? A simple yes or no would wonderful.
Posted by: mroberts | November 4, 2008 4:04 PM
mroberts - Certainly mothers are important for raising children, but you have no way to guarantee that every child will have one. Your position is that a child without a mother is better off with one father rather than two. I disagree.
Posted by: Taz | November 4, 2008 4:05 PM
What is a mother being left out of if two women get married?
I don't understand what you are asking, that is why I can't answer.
Posted by: Donalbain | November 4, 2008 4:06 PM
Certainly mothers are important for raising children, but you have no way to guarantee that every child will have one. Your position is that a child without a mother is better off with one father rather than two. I disagree.
Taz, I said nothing about guaranteeing every child to have a mother. I said nothing about one mother or no mother or two fathers or whatever. All I asked was are mothers unimportant for raising children? Everybody so far has dodged the question.
Are you, Taz, OK with advocating policies that would intentionally leave a mother out of the picture by design? Can't seem to get a simple yes or no from anybody.
Posted by: mroberts | November 4, 2008 4:09 PM
I wonder if mroberts honestly believes that advocates of gay marriage are secretly opposed to mothers.
It's delusional on a level I really can't understand.
Posted by: rob | November 4, 2008 4:09 PM
Is a mother important to raising a child? No. What's important is that someone in the child's life meets those needs that are traditionally met by a mother.
Done. Now answer my question.
Posted by: DaveL | November 4, 2008 4:11 PM
I wonder if mroberts honestly believes that advocates of gay marriage are secretly opposed to mothers.It's delusional on a level I really can't understand.
LOL, Rob dodges AGAIN. This is getting almost funny. Rob, can you answer the question please? Is it really that tough? Are mothers completely unimportant? Are you OK with advocating policies that would deliberately leave them out of the picture?
Posted by: mroberts | November 4, 2008 4:12 PM
Mroberts, I said all parents are important. That would include mothers, don't you think?
However, I, like Donalbain, don't think they are necessary or "legislatable". I know several single fathers who do a great job. I would never suggest the state have a hand in "designing" their families any more than I think it should have a hand in designing the families of homosexuals.
I know you think you are being clever and are trying to get us to admit that we think women are unimportant, but it's incredibly stupid and you're completely missing the point.
In the interest of maximizing child welfare, we are better served protecting gay marriage. Perhaps you can explain to us why you think children of SSMs don't deserve the same rights and protections that other children have.
Posted by: Leni | November 4, 2008 4:12 PM
'Are mothers important for raising children?'
Important how. You are asking a terrible question, one without any reference point. I believe that was your intent, rather than an accident, so that a fast answer can always be subjected to ridicule.
a) If you mean "Is a loving, nurturing, mother, important?" yes
b) If you mean "is any mother important?" No. Some women, just like some men, are not good parents at all, and should a child have the misfortune to have a poor mother, I would argue that does more harm than good
c) If you really mean "isn't it true that having two female 'parents', or two male 'parents', a horrible thing for a child?" - Just as in any other situation, the correct answer is: It depends on the people as parents, not on their sexual orientation
Perhaps a real question is: can a mother be "unimportant" in nurturing a child?" the answer is yes.
I tried to think of another thought process as ignorant as that demonstrated by mroberts (and his ilk). The closest I could come dates from the time when my older adopted son was about to arrive from South Korea: a student told me that she and her christian reformed pastor had been discussing the pending adoption: she told me their conclusion: "If you and your wife are really set on mixing the races, we'll just have to pray for your eternal souls." (I asked her to have the SOB contact me personally; he never did.)
I didn't think I'd ever hear anything as stupid again. mroberts just been proven wrong.
Posted by: leedwitt@gmail.com | November 4, 2008 4:13 PM
mrrob:
Two women get married.
What is a mother being left out of?
Posted by: Donalbain | November 4, 2008 4:13 PM
mroberts hasn't seen Psycho.
I love how the question has morphed from "I'm curious, would all of you who support gay marriage say that mothers are unimportant in raising children?"
to "Are you, Taz, OK with advocating policies that would intentionally leave a mother out of the picture by design?"
What an asshat.
Posted by: ildi | November 4, 2008 4:13 PM
Mroberts, I said all parents are important. That would include mothers, don't you think?
No Leni, you answered a question I was not asking. My question is if you are OK with advocating that policies that would BY DESIGN leave mothers completely out of picture. Do you believe that mothers are so unimportant that certain children should not have them as a matter of policy. It is a really easy question, but you seem to have a hard time answering it.
I know you think you are being clever and are trying to get us to admit that we think women are unimportant, but it's incredibly stupid and you're completely missing the point.
Hey, that's not far from the truth. By advocating that two men can adopt a child as a matter of policy, you ARE saying women are unimportant in the lives of children. How is that not a fair conclusion?
Posted by: mroberts | November 4, 2008 4:17 PM
Moronic Fuckwit -
Are you, Taz, OK with advocating policies that would intentionally leave a mother out of the picture by design? Can't seem to get a simple yes or no from anybody.
Not Taz, but happy to answer.
YES. Because as others have mentioned, parents are important, regardless of gender - two being better than one. And I will happily support policies that will put kids who are languishing in foster care into loving homes with two dads or two moms. Or will ensure that the natural child of a parent who enters a secure, same sex relationship, will be raised with the same security that marriage provides the children of straight couples.
Posted by: DuWayne | November 4, 2008 4:17 PM
The subject of discussion is Gay Marriage, not Gay Adoption. Neither your question nor its implied conclusion has anything to do with the former.
If you have a real argument to make, then stop derailing the thread and present it.
Posted by: DaveL | November 4, 2008 4:22 PM
In the same way that it is not a fair conclusion to say that if I advocate that a man and a woman can adopt a child as a matter of policy, that means my father is unimportant in the lives of children.
In other words-- you're speaking in generalities so broad that neither the answer "yes" nor "no" to your question makes any sense.
Posted by: Gretchen | November 4, 2008 4:23 PM
Leedwitt wrote:
I liked your re-phrasing of the question: "is any mother important?"
That was a good way of putting it.
I would only add (again) that all parents are important, for better or worse. Bad is just as important as good, unfortunately.
Posted by: Leni | November 4, 2008 4:23 PM
mroberts,
Since you seem incapable of reading my post that was immediately above your original question, I will copy and paste it here:
And therefore:
And therefore:
Posted by: rob | November 4, 2008 4:24 PM
mroberts - What part of "Certainly mothers are important for raising children" did you not understand? If you think that's dodging your question you need to work on your reading comprehension. As for your question "Are you OK with advocating policies that would intentionally leave a mother out of the picture by design?", you need to be a lot more specific. That scenario could involve anything from forced removal of children from their mothers to allowing a orphan to be adopted by a two gay men. Obviously I would abhor the first scenario but I would be OK with the second. What about you? Are you in favor of a child being forced to live in an orphanage rather than being adopted by a gay couple?
Posted by: Taz | November 4, 2008 4:27 PM
I have a rather shocking and novel idea!
Each family is different. Some families work well with one parent of each gender. Some families work well with two parents of the same gender. Some families work well with one parent. Hell, some families work well with a number of parents ranging from 1-7*
However, since procreation is not dependant on marriage, I fail to see what this has to do with gay marriage. Well, actually, I can.. but not in the way that mrroberts would like.
Lets imagine we have two people. They are Pamela and Karen. They are very much in love but they live in a future in which Proposition 8 has been passed and they can't marry.
Still, they are very much in love and decide to concieve a child with the help of a friend of theirs. The child is carried to term by Pamela and they bring her up with love and the child, Darren, is a wonderful young man.
Sadly, when Darren is 6, Pamela dies. Now, Pamela's mother is a Christian woman who never liked the idea that Pamela was gay and so she sues for custody of Darren. Since she could not marry Pamela or adopt Darren, Karen has no rights at all and the court is forced to award custody to the grandmother.
Thus we see that the effect of denying gays the right to marriage is NOT that children are protected. It is that children will be, and are, uprooted from homes where they are cared for and loved.
mrroberts:
Tell me how preventing gay marriage will make this situation any better? In fact can you name ANY situation that it would make better?
Posted by: Donalbain | November 4, 2008 4:28 PM
Patterico's anger at the California Supreme Court is misplaced. Our movie actor governor is much braver on film than he is in person. Arnold vetoed legislative measures to permit same-sex marriages -- which he claims to support -- because he said the courts needed to speak on the matter before he was willing to consider legislation. Talk about ass-backwards! The legislature was willing to act, but the governor refused, leaving it in the court's hands.
Posted by: Zeno | November 4, 2008 4:28 PM
By the way, mroberts, if your answer to the general question "Are you OK with advocating policies that would intentionally leave a mother out of the picture by design?" is always no, that would mean you are never in favor of the father getting custody of his children, no matter what the mother is like.
Posted by: Taz | November 4, 2008 4:30 PM
DuWayne, why are you getting so angry about this? Is it not safe to conclude that by advocating policies that intentionally leave a mother out of the picture in raising a child you are saying that a mother is at best, of marginal importance? How is that not an accurate assumption?
And I will happily support policies that will put kids who are languishing in foster care into loving homes with two dads or two moms.
Why is this better than setting up policies that will encourage more mom and dad couples to adopt? Why is the only alternative to put the kids in gay homes?
It's just a simple question, don't know why you are getting so pissed off about it.
Posted by: mroberts | November 4, 2008 4:31 PM
Not to mention two men (or women) can legally live and raise their children together without ever actually getting married. As can two people of the opposite sex. So the question has absolutely nothing to do with same-sex marriage.
Legal marriage has little to do with child-rearing. I'm pretty sure someone already said that upthread.
Posted by: Adrian W. | November 4, 2008 4:32 PM
Children in wealthy households typically receive better educations and more opportunities than children in middle-class or poor households. Therefore only the rich households, earning $250k per year or more, should be allowed to adopt. Or do you advocate we put children into a home that will limit their potential by design.
Posted by: Abby Normal | November 4, 2008 4:33 PM
Why is this better than setting up policies that will encourage more mom and dad couples to adopt? Why is the only alternative to put the kids in gay homes?
The sad fact is, there are not enough adoptive parents, and there NEVER have been. Yes, we should be encouraging more people to adopt, but sadly, apart from babies, we will never have enough.
The consequence of banning gays adopting is NOT more children in straight families. It is more children in orphanages. Is that what you want mrroberts?
Posted by: Donalbain | November 4, 2008 4:35 PM
Multiple commenters have both answered your question and challenged you to show its relevance. You've since responded to neither. This is the kind of trollish behaviour people are getting pissed off about.
Posted by: DaveL | November 4, 2008 4:36 PM
Are you in favor of a child being forced to live in an orphanage rather than being adopted by a gay couple?
Hilarious. Why is the only option to have the child be adopted by a gay couple? Isn't it possible that we could enact policies that would encourage more mom and dad families to adopt the child?
By the way, mroberts, if your answer to the general question "Are you OK with advocating policies that would intentionally leave a mother out of the picture by design?" is always no, that would mean you are never in favor of the father getting custody of his children, no matter what the mother is like.
No Taz, you obviously have no clue what I am asking. My question is the same whether I am asking it about moms or dads because I believe both a mom AND a dad are important for raising a child. As a matter of policy we should be encouraging nothing but this.
Posted by: mroberts | November 4, 2008 4:36 PM
Well, I was distracted for about fifteen minutes between when I typed my message and when I clicked post, and my point has already been made. Oh well, it bears repeating!
Posted by: Adrian W. | November 4, 2008 4:36 PM
Because you're an ignorant bigot?
HaHa! But seriously. What policies would you suggest?
Posted by: rob | November 4, 2008 4:39 PM
Children in wealthy households typically receive better educations and more opportunities than children in middle-class or poor households. Therefore only the rich households, earning $250k per year or more, should be allowed to adopt. Or do you advocate we put children into a home that will limit their potential by design.
Abby, where did I argue that lots of money was essential to child rearing? My argument has always been that we should be encouraging policies that put kids in mom and dad homes. I don't think I have ever said that those homes should be wealthy ones.
Posted by: mroberts | November 4, 2008 4:41 PM
OK mrroberts:
If you can THINK of a policy that will encourage more straights to adopt, you should be telling everyone who will listen. It is a VERY serious issue. Why aren't you doing something about it?
Posted by: Donalbain | November 4, 2008 4:41 PM
Bullshit. You asked if mothers were unimportant. I answered it.
Well, that's the corner you were attempting to back us into.
As a matter of policy? Certain children already have no mothers as a matter of policy. You can leave your children at the hospital if you don't want to care for them. You can divorce your wife and have sole custody. The state can take them away from mothers who are deemed unfit.
And in the broader, ridiculous sense to which I suspect you are prone, even mothers die. So even "God" sometimes designs families in which there are no mothers.
So as a matter of policy, no. I don't have a problem with it.
If the state recognizes marriages and families of even the worst imaginable creeps, I expect them to do it for law abiding, decent people and couples who are good parents, regardless of their gender.
Posted by: Leni | November 4, 2008 4:42 PM
mroberts -
The trouble with painting broad scenarios is that you often paint yourself into a corner. There are only two options for you, mroberts:1. You believe that no child should be taken from its mother, no matter how unfit that mother is.
2. You admit there are some scenarios in which you yourself advocate "policies that intentionally leave a mother out of the picture".
If you choose 1 you're an idiot. If you choose 2, does that mean you're saying "that a mother is at best, of marginal importance"?
Posted by: Taz | November 4, 2008 4:42 PM
No you didn't. I just did. The question stands. Do you advocate putting children into homes that will limit their opportunities by design?
Posted by: Abby Normal | November 4, 2008 4:43 PM
You don't, but you should if you were trying to be logically consistent, rather than engaging in special pleading. There is an overabundance of evidence showing the positive impact of wealth on children's future opportunities.
Now, the real question is Why are you using a flawed argument against Gay Adoption in a thread about Gay Marriage?
Posted by: DaveL | November 4, 2008 4:44 PM
Posted by: Taz | November 4, 2008 4:50 PM
Are you, Taz, OK with advocating policies that would intentionally leave a mother out of the picture by design? Can't seem to get a simple yes or no from anybody.
Hint - when you clumsily and deliberately mislabel a laissez-faire attitude of non-opposition as "advocacy", don't expect people to answer you as if you were asking an honest question.
Posted by: libarbarian | November 4, 2008 5:12 PM
To answer mroberts:
Whether at least one parent has a vagina is unimportant in raising a child.
Posted by: W. Kevin Vicklund | November 4, 2008 5:14 PM
Do you advocate putting children into homes that will limit their opportunities by design?
What home does not, in some way, limit the opportunities of children within it?
There is no environment anywhere that provides unlimited opportunities for children or adults.
Posted by: libarbarian | November 4, 2008 5:22 PM
Sorry to be so late to the troll beating but, mroberts, doesn't every child already have a mother? Is it not sort of implied in the whole narrative of birth that babies come from women...you know...mothers? So your question in that sense is monumentally stupid. So we've concluded that, yes, mothers are important in as much as they are necessary for bringing the children into the world, otherwise what other stupid tangent would you use to hijack the thread?
Posted by: boggsy | November 4, 2008 6:26 PM
Given the stats that mroberts continues to ignore show no statistical disadvantage for children to grow up with gay parents vs. heterosexual parents while we know there is a statistically significant advantage if one's parents are well educated and high income professionals, gay or straight, and using mrobert's argument for an optimal design; than mroberts' logic requires us to start sterilizing all adults without college educations, have had felonies, income levels fall below a certain level, or have certain religious beliefs since we know their children do not have optimal opportunities.
If I was an orphan and I had a choice between two gay married people living in NYC who were each PhDs vs. mroberts as my dad and his wife, give me the gay parents everytime.
Posted by: Michael Heath | November 4, 2008 6:31 PM
Michael Heath;
Well said. And, so many of the other comments, in rebuttal to mroberts. Me, you know I got no intellectual gravitas.
mroberts: STFU, you racist homophobic piece of shit.
Posted by: democommie | November 4, 2008 6:58 PM
mroberts: STFU, you racist homophobic piece of shit.
democommie, once again you display that amazing, inspiring "tolerance" that you love to lecture all the supposed haters and homophobes about. Seriously, look in the mirror. There are few people more intolerant and bigotted than yourself. NEVER have I displayed the kind of hatred toward people on this blog that I get from you and several others. If anybody is a hater here it is YOU, not me. Your own words give away your seething hatred and the blackness in your heart, yet you have the nerve to say the above about me. Here's a great link showing more "tolerance" from those that are much like democommie:
http://americansfortruth.com/news/video-shows-intolerance-of-anti-natural-marriage-forces-in-california.html
Exhibit A in hatred and bigotry: DEMOCOMMIE
Posted by: mroberts | November 4, 2008 7:11 PM
Ah, Roberts, you're back. Perhaps now you can explain what mothers have to do with Gay Marriage?
Or were you purposefully ignoring the responses until someone came along who could give you an excuse for another derail?
Posted by: DaveL | November 4, 2008 7:18 PM
I can't help but be amazed that I am BLASTED for simply wanting every child to have a mom and a dad. Wow, I'm the evil hater for that??? What's so scary about wanting a mom and dad for a child? You people have lost your minds - democommie in particular. The reason I was asking if you thought a mother was important was because all of you here are advocating not only gay marriage, but gay adoption. The latter will, as a matter of policy, leave a mother (or a father possibly) out of the picture. Yeah, I know I'm such a hater for pointing that out. Clearly, if you are saying that gay adoption is a good policy, you must not think that a mother (again, or a father) is important for a child because one or the other is going to be missing from the picture by design. Again, I know, I'm a homophobic hater for bringing it up. One of you implied that a man could adequately fulfill the role of the mother. LOL. That not only defies common sense, it greatly minimizes the unique qualities of a loving mother. Likewise, a woman cannot be a perfect substitute for a father either. If you think so, then clearly you have no clue just how different men and women are. One thing I have noticed about gay marriage proponents is that politics and political correctness comes looooong before reason. It is absolutely absurd to think that two men can offer a child what a mother and a father can, yet you all dismiss that because of your warped politics. You guys may be on ScienceBlogs, but reason, logic, and common sense are often nowhere to be found.
You all have a good night! It was huge fun ruffling your feathers. Nobody gets more pissed off than a rabid lefty when somebody questions their political dogma. LOL.
Posted by: mroberts | November 4, 2008 7:27 PM
It isn't hard to find a right-winger who advocates for both overt racism and 2nd amendment rights, yet they remain separate issues, and making an argument against the former should not, I hope you'll agree, invalidate the latter.
This is a thread about Gay Marriage. You have not even offered an argument against it, choosing instead to change the subject.
However, since you brought it up,
It is, however, borne out by disciplined, systematic research. That's because what you call "common sense" is really nothing more than "popular bigotry".
Why? Because you just said so? If you're proposing to discriminate against a whole class of people and deny them equal rights, you'd certainly want to back it up with something more substantial, no?
What unique qualities? Breasts? A vagina? Exactly what quality is it that a man cannot have?
Posted by: DaveL | November 4, 2008 7:38 PM
Oh please, mroberts. You set up this asinine false dichotomy of "gay couples be allowed to adopt" vs "children be with their mommies", then act offended when people call you on your bullshit. When someone points out that there are plenty of children without a mother, a father, or both, your only answer is to allude to this imaginary plan of yours that will magically correct the situation. And that's what you call reason, logic and common sense? Buy a dictionary.
Posted by: Taz | November 4, 2008 7:41 PM
Once again mroberts avoids the central core points of the best arguments against his position.
Posted by: Michael Heath | November 4, 2008 7:48 PM
Moronic Fuckwit -
DuWayne, why are you getting so angry about this?
It's not just this, it's you. It's the trollish way that you framed this moronic question. It's the way you just assume that people who don't agree with your obsession with the gold standard, don't know anything about it (here's a fucking clue dipshit, I used to agree with you on it and imagine I read much the same bullshit you have to get there - then someone clued me in). It's the nauseating bullshit you spew every time you rear your ugly, pathetic little shit hole.
So let me ask you this; Why do you advocate policies that would allow children to languish their entire minority, in the institutional atmosphere of foster care or orphanages?
And don't give me some line about advocating policies that would put kids into the homes of secure straight couples. We've been there and done it and guess what? There are a whole lot of children who don't get adopted - most especially kids above the age of two. Get above age six and they can pretty much forget it. Kids with special needs - rare is the couple that will take them in. Gay couples are rapidly moving into the position of adopting more of the kids in the "unadoptable" category, than straight couples. And that is even after it's become more acceptable and more states will allow them to adopt "normal" adoptees.
Is it not safe to conclude that by advocating policies that intentionally leave a mother out of the picture in raising a child you are saying that a mother is at best, of marginal importance?
No you fuckwit.
How is that not an accurate assumption?
The only thing being marginalized, is the fuckwitted notion that families come in only one flavor. They don't and increasingly, we are seeing families headed by same sex couples. I've gone the rounds on why I think studies investigating outcomes of gay headed families are flawed, in spite of them showing somewhat better outcomes in aggregate, than hetero families (i.e. gays generally can't accidentally have kids and have to really want them), but it is clear that they can and often do have pretty damn good outcomes.
As apposed to the outcomes of kids raised by the state, who have obscenely higher odds of continuing their institutionalization into adulthood, in prison.
Why is this better than setting up policies that will encourage more mom and dad couples to adopt?
Most states bend over fucking backwards to get hetero couples to adopt and have for a very long time. The fact of the matter is, there are a great many more kids, than there are families willing to take them in. When couples decide to adopt, if they can't have them themselves, they want infants, not kids who've been around for a while and had other parents in their lives. All the incentives in the world aren't going to change that for most people.
Why is the only alternative to put the kids in gay homes?
It's not the only alternative, in some states, they'll let singles adopt the unadoptable.
It's just a simple question, don't know why you are getting so pissed off about it.
Because it's a poison pill question, just like the one I asked you at the top of this comment. And it's not just this question, it's you. You're nothing but a fuckwitted troll who wants to piss people off and pretend to wonder why we're all nasty to you. You're a fucking ignorant piece of shit and a waste of fucking oxygen. Every goddamn thing you comment on, with few exceptions, you feel compelled to be a piece of shit. I don't like you because of that. And as long as you stick your vile little nose in around here, I am going to make that clear every time I feel the urge to respond to your bile.
No Taz, you obviously have no clue what I am asking. My question is the same whether I am asking it about moms or dads because I believe both a mom AND a dad are important for raising a child. As a matter of policy we should be encouraging nothing but this.
Fuck you you ignorant piece of horse shit. Encouraging nothing but this, would have put me in a home with my mother and biological father - something that would not have been the healthiest for me or my mom (Three of my bio-paternal siblings have killed themselves, one overtly, two with heroin). Thankfully, you don't get to decide and I ended up being raised for a while with my single mom (my next oldest brother had almost eight years, I had two) and then she met and married my old man who adopted my next oldest bro and I.
Exhibit A in hatred and bigotry: DEMOCOMMIE
No, you just bring out the worst in people, with your own hatred and bile. Me, I'm not a tolerant liberal type - so fuck off and die you vile piece of shit. Seriously, go away - no one here likes you or really has any interest in anything you spew. All you ever do is derail reasonable and rational conversation and piss people off.
And I will note that I don't feel this way about most people I disagree with, not even folks I disagree with on this issue. Just trollish fuckwits like you.
Posted by: DuWayne | November 4, 2008 7:54 PM
It's not just this, it's you. It's the trollish way that you framed this moronic question. It's the way you just assume that people who don't agree with your obsession with the gold standard, don't know anything about it (here's a fucking clue dipshit, I used to agree with you on it and imagine I read much the same bullshit you have to get there - then someone clued me in). It's the nauseating bullshit you spew every time you rear your ugly, pathetic little shit hole.
Wow DuWayne, step back and take a breath. Relax. If this makes you THAT angry, you need to find something else to do. Seriously, you are bordering on nutcase status. Unbelievable. If you think I am such a moron and you find me so aggravating and stupid, why do you even bother to respond to my posts? Sounds neurotic to me.
Posted by: mroberts | November 4, 2008 8:01 PM
Wow, didn't even read the whole post. Let me copy a few samples. Ed, is this what passes for intellectualism on this blog? Holy crap.
It's the nauseating bullshit you spew every time you rear your ugly, pathetic little shit hole.
No you fuckwit.
And it's not just this question, it's you. You're nothing but a fuckwitted troll who wants to piss people off and pretend to wonder why we're all nasty to you. You're a fucking ignorant piece of shit and a waste of fucking oxygen. Every goddamn thing you comment on, with few exceptions, you feel compelled to be a piece of shit. I don't like you because of that. And as long as you stick your vile little nose in around here, I am going to make that clear every time I feel the urge to respond to your bile.
Fuck you you ignorant piece of horse shit.
No, you just bring out the worst in people, with your own hatred and bile. Me, I'm not a tolerant liberal type - so fuck off and die you vile piece of shit. Seriously, go away - no one here likes you or really has any interest in anything you spew. All you ever do is derail reasonable and rational conversation and piss people off.
And I will note that I don't feel this way about most people I disagree with, not even folks I disagree with on this issue. Just trollish fuckwits like you.
DuWayne, if you were on the road, I would call it road rage. Seriously dude, you need to do something about the anger. Absolutely weird, and kind of disturbing that you would get so angry over a bunch of stupid posts on a blog. If you don't like controversy, why do you engage in it? If all this makes you that pissed off, you REALLY, REALLY, REALLY need to find something else to do with your time.
I try to engage in reasonable discussion, and it is NEVER, NEVER me that gets this unglued over all these discussions. It is all of YOU. Yet I am the one accused of being the hater. DuWayne, your post is just more proof that the hate is not coming from my direction.
Get a grip.
Posted by: mroberts | November 4, 2008 8:09 PM
mroberts wrote:
No, you're being blasted for denying equal rights and privileges to some people, including children.
Yes, that makes you a "hater". We can address the matter of "evil" some other time.
No shit, Sherlock. Why do you think people are responding to your big "gay adoption" point? Because they didn't understand that was what you getting at?
No, we all pretty much just think you're being an asshole. Perhaps that would be because you are essentially arguing that children are somehow better of with no parents, or horrible hetero parents, than they are with good homosexual parents.
If you don't want people to think you are a hater, then perhaps you shouldn't say such assinine, hateful things.
Don't flatter yourself, asshole. No one's feathers are ruffled because your such a master of snark and logic that our ethical subroutines couldn't be reconciled with our liberal directives, creating a dangerous "Hofstadter-Moebius" loop. We just all think you're a stupid prick for insisting children are better off with bad straight parents (or no parents at all) than they would be with gay parents.
If you don't want people to treat you like a hater maybe you shouldn't pick on children. Just a thought.
Posted by: Leni | November 4, 2008 8:21 PM
I try to engage in reasonable discussion,...
No you don't and that is the problem. You come to spew your hatred and then you wonder why people get irritated. Why does it bother me so? Because I would like to have a rational discussion with the people who choose to comment here and you derail it every fucking time you show up.
Posted by: DuWayne | November 4, 2008 8:22 PM
One last comment, before I have to run. First, there are extenuating circumstances that have pushed me to express exactly how I feel about the ignorant fuckwit, without toning it down. I probably shouldn't respond to toads like that under the circs, so this will be my last.
Fuckwitted moron -
You complain of my hatred and think it hypocritical. It's not. Not that I don't have a fair amount of hatred for you, but mine is specific - i.e. I find you more loathsome than a dose of the clap. But I feel that way about you, not a group of people. You OTOH, carry hatred and animosity for an entire group of people who's only distinction is that instead of being attracted to members of the opposite sex, they are attracted to members of the same sex.
I fully admit to having something akin to hatred. Like I said, I'm not all about the tolerance and for you I have none. But there is a great reason for that.
Posted by: DuWayne | November 4, 2008 8:31 PM
Oh, is that why you ask questions that aren't relevant to the subject of the thread?
Is that why you refuse to back up your assertions?
Is that why you refuse to enumerate these mysterious qualities that only women can possess?
Is that why you imply this ridiculous non-sequitur that allowing forbidding gay couples to adopt somehow assures every child a loving mother?
Is that why you immediately jump on any commenter who offers you the chance at another tangent and ignore the arguments and answers of others?
Reasonable discussion, indeed.
Posted by: DaveL | November 4, 2008 8:33 PM
No you don't and that is the problem. You come to spew your hatred and then you wonder why people get irritated. Why does it bother me so? Because I would like to have a rational discussion with the people who choose to comment here and you derail it every fucking time you show up.
DuWayne, if asking if people think that moms are important is hatred, then you really are screwed up in the head. If disagreeing is hatred, you are screwed up in the head. Do you want debate, or do you just want an echo chamber for your goofy ideas? I haven't derailed anything. If anybody did that, it was you. You're the one who ended the discussion with your long potty-mouth rant, not me. Rational people can discuss issues without resorting to nasty name-calling and cussword-filled diatribes.
Posted by: mroberts | November 4, 2008 8:36 PM
Oh, so now we're back to asking "if mom's are important". And not:
Posted by: Leni | November 4, 2008 8:45 PM
What a lying little sack of shit you are.
If you don't want gay people to have equal rights, just say it. Don't pretend like you're some advocate for mother's rights.
Posted by: Leni | November 4, 2008 8:48 PM
mroberts:
I don't hate you, you shithead. I think you're contemptible and an idiot. If anything I pity you, but it doesn't mean I want to read your drivel or see others waste their time trying to debate someone like you who has nothing to back up his biased and prejudiced comments. You want hate, ya kinda gotta go to the side where you live, pal.
Posted by: democommie | November 4, 2008 9:04 PM
Pile on Mrroberts!
He asked:
my answer is:
:p -DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | November 4, 2008 10:25 PM
mroberts:
Your question seems to assume that there are more adoptive homes than children who need homes. That isn't the case. Adopting a child out to a gay couple is not taking a child away from a heterosexual couple. Aside from being irrelevant to Prop 8, the scenario you're posing doesn't make any sense.
Posted by: Troublesome Frog | November 4, 2008 11:27 PM
I am not OK with advocating policies that intentionally leave the mother out of the picture by design when the heterosexual couple chooses to raise the child, when the single mother chooses to raise the child, or whent he lesbian couple chooses to raise the child.
Posted by: James Hanley | November 4, 2008 11:35 PM
Uh, that would be game, set and match to those arguing against the troll mroberts.
Ed, can't you just ban the twit? He wasting valuable pixels on my monitor.
Posted by: TikiHead | November 5, 2008 12:53 AM
OK... one last time..
mrroberts:
We have more children in orphanages and foster care than we have straight couples who want to adopt children. That is the situation. That is the REAL WORLD.
Now, given that fact, we have a few options:
1) We can leave them in institutional care indefinitely
2) We can have some of them adopted by single parents and/or gay parents
3) We can leave them in institutional care while you and others try to come up with policies to get more straight married people to adopt them
Tell us. Which of those three options do you think is best for a child? Also, if you pick option 3, what policies do you suggest, and how long will it take for them to take effect?
Posted by: Donalbain | November 5, 2008 2:25 AM
Donalbain,
Snap! You said it well.
Posted by: TikiHead | November 5, 2008 1:31 PM
I posit that for MrRoberts, drama = woodie.
Posted by: SharonB | November 5, 2008 2:00 PM
mroberts arguments bring to mind a conversation some friends and I had with a Japanese nationalist a few years ago. He claimed that he wasn't in the wrong, and that he couldn't understand all the hatred being directed at him. He wasn't racist, he was just pointing out that Koreans were sub-human. He was quite shocked when we spat on him.
mroberts, as Joe Strummer once said, I don't hate you, I don't think enough of you to hate you.
Posted by: Malcolm | November 5, 2008 8:26 PM
Hey, mroberts, I have a question for you:
Do you think that a married heterosexual couple should be allowed to adopt children if the husband is secretly a bisexual?
Posted by: Gingerbaker | November 6, 2008 6:37 AM
Donalbain (and every other rational person here),
Excellent points!
I would like to add a 4th option though, which is one that I think everyone (even people like mroberts) should be able to support (if they're actually honest about their intentions), since it gives the haters an opportunity to prove that they are right (even though I honestly think they'll never be able to), while giving a home to as many children as possible, as soon as possible:
4) We can have some of them adopted by single parents and/or gay parents, while [mroberts] and others try to come up with policies to get more straight married people to adopt them.
There; everybody wins, especially the orphaned or abandoned children.
Posted by: Kaerion | November 6, 2008 9:19 AM